SECOND SECTION. CASE OF AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 28 August 2012 FINAL 28/11/2012
|
|
- Laureen Burke
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SECOND SECTION CASE OF AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28 August 2012 FINAL 28/11/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
2
3 AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 1 In the case of Ahmet Duran v. Turkey, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Danutė Jočienė, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, András Sajó, Işıl Karakaş, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Helen Keller, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 10 July 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application (no /06) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ( the Convention ) by a Turkish national, Mr Ahmet Duran ( the applicant ), on 7 September The applicant was represented by Mr K. Fırtına, a lawyer practising in Van. The Turkish Government ( the Government ) were represented by their Agent. 3. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his time in custody at the Çaldıran district gendarmerie command and that the investigation into his allegations had been ineffective. 4. On 11 May 2009 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 1). THE FACTS 5. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Van. 6. On 18 April 2005 the Çaldıran Magistrates Court issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant in absentia, on suspicion of his involvement in the trafficking of illegal immigrants between Iran and Turkey. 7. According to the applicant s submissions, on the same day at 5 p.m. he was arrested by gendarmerie officers and was taken to the Çaldıran
4 2 AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT district gendarmerie command, where he was allegedly beaten by the gendarmerie station commander, Y.A. 8. The Government maintained, however, that the applicant had been taken to the gendarmerie command at around 7.35 p.m. 9. As soon as he was brought to the gendarmerie command, the applicant was examined by a doctor upon a letter from the district gendarmerie commander, which stated that the applicant was due to be taken into custody. The doctor indicated in his medical report that there was a graze of 2 cm and a scab caused by bleeding on the applicant s right tibia, a bruise and sensitivity on the left side of his nose, lesions on both sides of his back and sensitivity under his right nipple. 10. Following the medical examination, the applicant was taken into custody. The official custody record noted the time of his placement in custody as 8 p.m. and indicated that there was no sign of physical violence on his body. 11. On 19 April 2005 at 9 a.m. the applicant had a meeting with his representative. Subsequently, the latter filed a petition with the Çaldıran public prosecutor s office, stating that the applicant had alleged he had been ill-treated at the gendarmerie command. The lawyer indicated that he had observed bruises on the applicant s face and requested that the applicant be medically examined in order to establish whether he had sustained the injuries as a result of physical violence in custody. 12. At a.m. the applicant was examined by another doctor following the request of the district gendarmerie commander, who noted that the applicant was due to be released from custody. The second medical report indicated exactly the same findings as those mentioned in the initial report. 13. On the same day the applicant was brought before the Çaldıran Magistrates Court, which ordered his pre-trial detention. 14. At 7.10 p.m., prior to his detention in Muradiye Prison, the applicant was once again examined by a doctor at the Muradiye State Hospital. The medical report drawn up by that doctor indicated a slightly swollen lesion measuring 0.5 x 0.1 cm on the applicant s left cheekbone, a 3 x 4 cm lesion on the right side of his nose, a lesion of 2 x 3 cm under his left nipple and a sensitive area of 2 x 0.2 cm on his right tibia. The doctor concluded that the injuries would render the applicant unfit for work for one day. 15. On 22 April 2005 the applicant sent a petition to the Çaldıran public prosecutor s office. He claimed that he had been beaten at the district gendarmerie command and requested that an investigation be initiated into the matter. 16. On 17 November 2005 the public prosecutor heard the applicant s statements. The applicant submitted that he had been beaten and cursed by Y.A., who had also threatened him by pointing a gun at his head.
5 AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT On 7 December 2005 Y.A. told the public prosecutor that the applicant had been examined by a doctor before his detention in custody and found to have been injured. He stated that he could not be held liable of those findings in that they had apparently been sustained before the applicant s arrest. He further argued that all kinds of evidence had already been obtained against the applicant beforehand and that therefore it would be irrational to conclude that he had been ill-treated in order to obtain evidence. 18. On 13 December 2005 the Çaldıran public prosecutor decided not to prosecute Y.A. On the basis of the three medical reports issued prior to and after the applicant s custody, he found that the injuries on the applicant had existed before he had been taken to the gendarmerie command. He further maintained that the applicant had failed to raise his allegations of ill-treatment before the Çaldıran Magistrates Court on 19 April 2005, the day he had been placed in detention on remand. The prosecutor concluded that there was insufficient evidence to charge Y.A. with the alleged offence. 19. On 20 February 2006 the applicant s representative objected to the decision of the Çaldıran public prosecutor. He argued that on the day of the events, the applicant had been taken into custody at 5 p.m. and had been beaten in the gendarmerie command until the time he had been brought before a doctor. He maintained that the two identical medical reports, drawn up immediately before and after the applicant s custody, proved that point and that there was also a witness who had seen the applicant s arrest at 5 p.m. The representative finally submitted that contrary to the public prosecutor s findings, he had raised the applicant s complaint on 19 April 2005 before the relevant authorities. 20. On 15 March 2006 the Van Assize Court dismissed that objection, holding that the investigation conducted by the public prosecutor had been adequate. 21. By a letter dated 23 July 2009 the applicant s representative submitted the Court statements from two residents of the applicant s village, who maintained that they had witnessed the applicant s arrest at 4.30 p.m. on 18 April THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 22. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during the first hours of his unacknowledged custody at the Çaldıran district gendarmerie command and that the perpetrator of that offence had not been
6 4 AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT punished. He relied upon Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 23. The Government contested the applicant s arguments. A. Admissibility 24. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits 1. The substantive aspect of Article The Government argued that the alleged ill-treatment did not fall within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention in that it had not attained the minimum level of severity. They submitted that the said treatment had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt as three medical reports, drawn up by different doctors and obtained before and after the applicant s custody, indicated the same findings and as the applicant had failed to describe the alleged acts in detail. In this respect, the Government also contended that the case differed from other cases concerning ill-treatment in police custody, since in the applicant s case there had already been adequate evidence to charge him with an offence prior to his arrest. 26. The Court recalls that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt (see Talat Tepe v. Turkey, no /96, 48, 21 December 2004). Such proof may, however, follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no /95, 121, ECHR 2000-IV). Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries occurring during such control (see, mutatis mutandis, Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia, no. 839/02, 99, 24 January 2008). 27. The Court observes that although the medical reports as to the applicant s condition before and after his custody at the gendarmerie command indicated several lesions and sensitive areas on his body (see paragraphs 9 and 14 above), it cannot establish on the basis of the case
7 AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 5 file whether those injuries were the result of the alleged physical violence inflicted on the applicant between 5 p.m. and 7.35 p.m. on the day of his arrest. In this respect, it notes that the applicant was examined by a doctor for the first time at 7.35 p.m. that day. Moreover, according to the official record held at the gendarmerie command, he was taken into custody at 8 p.m. The Court contends that despite the applicant s allegations and the statements of two persons from his village, it cannot conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had been taken into custody at the gendarmerie command before he was examined by a doctor. Accordingly, the first medical report, which appears to have been issued before the applicant s custody, indicates the same findings with those drawn up afterwards. 28. In the light of the foregoing and having regard to the applicant s failure to describe the alleged acts in detail, the Court finds it impossible to conclude that the injuries on the applicant s body were caused by the gendarmerie station commander, Y.A. (see, mutatis mutandis, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, 100, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII; and Halat v. Turkey, no /08, 49, 8 November 2011). In these circumstances, the Court cannot consider it established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. 29. It follows that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantial aspect. 2. The procedural aspect of Article The Government argued that the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the applicant s allegations of ill-treatment was thorough and effective. They submitted that the effectiveness of a remedy did not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, 122, Series A no. 215) and that the domestic authorities were better placed to assess criminal liability. 31. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention requires the authorities to carry out an effective official investigation into allegations of ill-treatment when they are arguable and raise a reasonable suspicion (see, in particular, Assenov and Others, cited above, ). 32. In the present case, the Court has not found it proved, on account of lack of evidence, that the applicant was ill-treated as alleged. Nevertheless, as it has held in previous cases, that does not preclude the applicant s complaint in relation to Article 3 from being arguable for the purposes of the positive obligation to investigate (see, Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey, nos /01, 26968/02 and 36397/03, 54, 10 March 2009; and Aysu v. Turkey, no /07, 40, 13 March 2012). In reaching this conclusion, the Court has had regard to the findings in the medical reports
8 6 AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT drawn up in respect of the applicant, which indicate several lesions and sensitive areas on his body. 33. The Court recalls that the minimum standards as to the effectiveness of an investigation include the requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, among others, Çelik and İmret v. Turkey, no /98, 55, 26 October 2004; and Hürriyet Yılmaz v. Turkey, no /02, 46, 5 June 2007). 34. It cannot be overlooked that an investigation into the applicant s allegations of ill-treatment was initiated by the Çaldıran public prosecutor. During the course of that investigation, the public prosecutor heard the statements of the applicant and Y.A. and assessed the three medical reports issued before and after the applicant s custody. The Court observes nevertheless that in his decision not to prosecute Y.A., the prosecutor relied completely on the validity of the medical reports without questioning the identical wording of the first two, despite their having been drawn up by different doctors. 35. In this connection, the Court contends that in order to assess the possible causes of the injuries found on the applicant s body, the public prosecutor could have requested another medical report immediately after the petition of the applicant s representative on 19 April 2005, or following the applicant s own petition dated 22 April However, he failed to do so. Instead, the prosecutor briefly referred to the three medical reports, which did not indicate anything as to how or when those injuries might have been sustained. 36. The Court notes furthermore that although the applicant s representative filed a complaint on 19 April 2005, the public prosecutor did not take any steps to pursue the investigation until the time he took the statements of the applicant and Y.A., almost seven months later. It considers that that delay, together with the Van Assize Court s failure to hear the witness mentioned by the applicant s representative (see paragraph 19 above), as indications of the authorities failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant s allegations of ill-treatment in a prompt and diligent manner. 37. There has therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural aspect. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 38. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
9 AHMET DURAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT 7 FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1. Declares the application admissible; 2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive aspect; 3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural aspect. Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 August 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Françoise Elens-Passos Deputy Registrar Françoise Tulkens President
FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 16 May 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 78375/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 16 May 2017 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 32971/08 by Phrooghosadat AYATOLLAHI and Hojy Bahroutz HOSSEINZADEH against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section),
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF DEMİRBAŞ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF DEMİRBAŞ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Applications nos. 50973/06, 8672/07 and
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ALEKSANDR NIKONENKO v. UKRAINE. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 November 2013 FINAL 14/02/2014
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ALEKSANDR NIKONENKO v. UKRAINE (Application no. 54755/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 November 2013 FINAL 14/02/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 20513/08 by Aurelijus BERŽINIS against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 December 2011 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF EŞİM v. TURKEY. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 September 2013 FINAL 17/12/2013
SECOND SECTION CASE OF EŞİM v. TURKEY (Application no. 59601/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 September 2013 FINAL 17/12/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF AFET SÜREYYA EREN v. TURKEY. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 20 October 2015 FINAL 14/03/2016
SECOND SECTION CASE OF AFET SÜREYYA EREN v. TURKEY (Application no. 36617/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 October 2015 FINAL 14/03/2016 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF SORGUÇ v. TURKEY. (Application no /03) JUDGMENT
SECOND SECTION CASE OF SORGUÇ v. TURKEY (Application no. 17089/03) JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 21 January 2010 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court STRASBOURG 23 June 2009 FINAL 23/09/2009 This
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF GURBAN v. TURKEY. (Application no. 4947/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 December 2015
SECOND SECTION CASE OF GURBAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 4947/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 December 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 45073/07 by Aurelijus BERŽINIS against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 December 2011 as a Committee composed of: Dragoljub
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 17064/06 by Boruch SHUB against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 June 2009 as a Chamber composed
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF KÖSE v. TURKEY. (Application no /02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 December 2010 FINAL 07/03/2011
SECOND SECTION CASE OF KÖSE v. TURKEY (Application no. 37616/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 December 2010 FINAL 07/03/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF TURGAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (no. 3) (Applications nos /08, 23173/08, 23182/08 and 23200/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
SECOND SECTION CASE OF TURGAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (no. 3) (Applications nos. 21950/08, 23173/08, 23182/08 and 23200/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21 September 2010 FINAL 21/12/2010 This judgment has become
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF ÖNER AND TÜRK v. TURKEY. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 31 March 2015 FINAL 30/06/2015
SECOND SECTION CASE OF ÖNER AND TÜRK v. TURKEY (Application no. 51962/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 March 2015 FINAL 30/06/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF BALÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF BALÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Application no. 25/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 9 January 2018
SECOND SECTION CASE OF ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 24211/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 January 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY JUDGMENT
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 54041/14 G.H. against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 June 2015 as a Chamber composed of: Işıl Karakaş, President, András
More informationFIRST SECTION. Application no /07 Gennadiy Nikolayevich KURKIN against Russia lodged on 15 October 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS
FIRST SECTION Application no. 51098/07 Gennadiy Nikolayevich KURKIN against Russia lodged on 15 October 2007 Communicated on 9 July 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Gennadiy Nikolayevich Kurkin,
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF STEFAN ILIEV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 May 2007
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF STEFAN ILIEV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 53121/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 May 2007 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF Y.F. v. TURKEY (Application no. 24209/94) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 22 July 2003
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF GUBACSI v. HUNGARY. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 28 June 2011 FINAL 28/09/2011
SECOND SECTION CASE OF GUBACSI v. HUNGARY (Application no. 44686/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28 June 2011 FINAL 28/09/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 20 July 2017
FIRST SECTION CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 50520/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 July 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF U.N. v. RUSSIA. (Application no /15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 26 July 2016
THIRD SECTION CASE OF U.N. v. RUSSIA (Application no. 14348/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 26 July 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 24851/10 DEBÚT Zrt. and Others against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 November 2012 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi,
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF KAROUSSIOTIS v. PORTUGAL. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG. 1 February 2011 FINAL 01/05/2011
SECOND SECTION CASE OF KAROUSSIOTIS v. PORTUGAL (Application no. 23205/08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG 1 February 2011 FINAL 01/05/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF TURGAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY. (Applications nos. 8306/08, 8340/08 and 8366/08)
SECOND SECTION CASE OF TURGAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Applications nos. 8306/08, 8340/08 and 8366/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 June 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF PEČENKO v. SLOVENIA. (Application no. 6387/10) JUDGMENT
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF PEČENKO v. SLOVENIA (Application no. 6387/10) JUDGMENT This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 29 November 2016. STRASBOURG 4 December
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF LAMANNA v. AUSTRIA. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF LAMANNA v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 28923/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 July
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF KNEŽEVIĆ v. CROATIA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 19 October 2017
FIRST SECTION CASE OF KNEŽEVIĆ v. CROATIA (Application no. 55133/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 19 October 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. KNEŽEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF VAJNAI v. HUNGARY. (Application no. 6061/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 23 September 2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF VAJNAI v. HUNGARY (Application no. 6061/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 September 2014 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. VAJNAI v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF SVETLORUSOV v. UKRAINE (Application no. 2929/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 12
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA. (Application no /09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 December 2017
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF CUŠKO v. LATVIA (Application no. 32163/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 December 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. CUŠKO v. LATVIA JUDGMENT 1 In the
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 January 2015
FIRST SECTION CASE OF ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA (Application no. 42080/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 January 2015 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF POTCOAVĂ v. ROMANIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 17 December 2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF POTCOAVĂ v. ROMANIA (Application no. 27945/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 December 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF PAUL AND BORODIN v. RUSSIA. (Application no /14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 13 November 2018
THIRD SECTION CASE OF PAUL AND BORODIN v. RUSSIA (Application no. 28508/14) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 November 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. PAUL AND BORODIN v.
More information- unofficial translation -
SECOND SECTION CASE OF FENER RUM PATRĠKLĠĞĠ (ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE) v. TURKEY (Application no. 14340/05) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 15 June 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 37204/02 Ludmila Yakovlevna GUSAR against the Republic of Moldova and Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 April 2013 as a Chamber
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA. (Application no /08)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA (Application no. 48099/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 May 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. RAMISHVILI v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF FOKAS v. TURKEY. (Application no /02) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG. 1 October 2013 FINAL 01/01/2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF FOKAS v. TURKEY (Application no. 31206/02) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 1 October 2013 FINAL 01/01/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF STEMPLYS AND DEBESYS v. LITHUANIA. (Applications nos /13 and 71974/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF STEMPLYS AND DEBESYS v. LITHUANIA (Applications nos. 71024/13 and 71974/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 October 2017 This judgment is final in but it may be subject to editorial revision.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF HÉNAF v. FRANCE (Application no. 65436/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 November
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF YANKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 4570/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 23 September 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF YANKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (Application no. 4570/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 September 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF BASARBA OOD v. BULGARIA. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG. 7 January 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BASARBA OOD v. BULGARIA (Application no. 77660/01) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 7 January 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF LUCHKINA v. RUSSIA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF LUCHKINA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 3548/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 April
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF FRANCESCO SESSA v. ITALY. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG. 3 April 2012 FINAL 24/09/2012
SECOND SECTION CASE OF FRANCESCO SESSA v. ITALY (Application no. 28790/08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG 3 April 2012 FINAL 24/09/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIRST SECTION. Application no /10. against Russia lodged on 7 August 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS
FIRST SECTION Application no. 48741/10 by Aleksandr Nikolayevich MILOVANOV against Russia lodged on 7 August 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Milovanov, is a Russian
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 40229/98 by A.G. and Others
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 8 December 2011
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND (Application no. 37868/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 December 2011 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. T.H. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF C. v. IRELAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 March 2012
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF C. v. IRELAND (Application no. 24643/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 March 2012 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. C. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the case of
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF HARRISON McKEE v. HUNGARY. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 3 June 2014 FINAL 13/10/2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF HARRISON McKEE v. HUNGARY (Application no. 22840/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 3 June 2014 FINAL 13/10/2014 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF KAREMANI v. ALBANIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 September 2018
SECOND SECTION CASE OF KAREMANI v. ALBANIA (Application no. 48717/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 September 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. KAREMANI v. ALBANIA JUDGMENT
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY. (Application no /03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 23 September 2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY (Application no. 17362/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 September 2014 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROSEN PETKOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 September 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ROSEN PETKOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 65417/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 September 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DORIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 November 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DORIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (Application no. 68811/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 November 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. DORIĆ v. BOSNIA
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF HANU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 4 June 2013
THIRD SECTION CASE OF HANU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 10890/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 4 June 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF PRESCHER v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 6767/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 June 2011 FINAL 07/09/2011
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PRESCHER v. BULGARIA (Application no. 6767/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 June 2011 FINAL 07/09/2011 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 16472/04 by Ruslan Anatoliyovych ULYANOV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 October 2010
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF PENEV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /04)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF PENEV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 20494/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 January 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF KARAOĞLAN v. TURKEY. (Application no /00) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF KARAOĞLAN v. TURKEY (Application no. 60161/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application no /00. against Russia
MENESHEVA v. RUSSIA About Project FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 59261/00 by Olga Yevgenyevna MENESHEVA against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section),
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 7332/10 by Josef HAVELKA against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 20 September 2011 as
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF TANKO TODOROV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /99)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF TANKO TODOROV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 51562/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 November 2006 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 53235/11 and 8784/13 Silvia BRÁS DE MATOS against Portugal and Sandra Maria DA COSTA TORREZÃO against Portugal The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section),
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF CHINNICI v. ITALY (No. 2) (Application no /03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 14 April 2015
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF CHINNICI v. ITALY (No. 2) (Application no. 22432/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 April 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF CUNHA MARTINS DA SILVA COUTO v. PORTUGAL. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 30 April 2015
FIRST SECTION CASE OF CUNHA MARTINS DA SILVA COUTO v. PORTUGAL (Application no. 66436/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 30 April 2015 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. CUNHA MARTINS
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF BOCA v. BELGIUM. (Application no /99) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF BOCA v. BELGIUM (Application no. 50615/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 November
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DICKMANN AND GION v. ROMANIA. (Applications nos /03 and 10893/04) JUDGMENT (Revision 1 ) STRASBOURG.
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DICKMANN AND GION v. ROMANIA (Applications nos. 10346/03 and 10893/04) JUDGMENT (Revision 1 ) STRASBOURG 28 August 2018 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF BENJAMIN & WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURTOFHUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF BENJAMIN & WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 28212/95) JUDGMENT
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY. (Application no. 997/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 November 2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY (Application no. 997/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 November 2014 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. MAIORANO AND SERAFINI
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF IVANOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 5 July 2012
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF IVANOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 41140/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 5 July 2012 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. IVANOV v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 1 In
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COURT (CHAMBER) CASE OF DUDGEON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (ARTICLE 50) (Application no. 7525/76) JUDGMENT
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF GÜVEÇ v. TURKEY. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF GÜVEÇ v. TURKEY (Application no. 70337/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 January
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF STEFANOV & YURUKOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /04)
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF STEFANOV & YURUKOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 25382/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 April 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF YOUTH INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS v. SERBIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 June 2013 FINAL 25/09/2013
SECOND SECTION CASE OF YOUTH INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS v. SERBIA (Application no. 48135/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 June 2013 FINAL 25/09/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 17969/10 Janina Gelena SELINA against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 September 2017 as a Committee composed of: Paulo
More informationConvention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
UNITED NATIONS CAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Distr. GENERAL CAT/C/CR/31/6 11 February 2004 ENGLISH Original: FRENCH COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF DEMJANJUK v. GERMANY. (Application no /15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 24 January 2019
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF DEMJANJUK v. GERMANY (Application no. 24247/15) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 24 January 2019 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF ERCAN BOZKURT v. TURKEY. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 23 June 2015 FINAL 23/09/2015
SECOND SECTION CASE OF ERCAN BOZKURT v. TURKEY (Application no. 20620/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 23 June 2015 FINAL 23/09/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF ŠEBALJ v. CROATIA. (Application no. 4429/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 28 June 2011
FIRST SECTION CASE OF ŠEBALJ v. CROATIA (Application no. 4429/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28 June 2011 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF ASAN RUSHITI v. AUSTRIA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF ASAN RUSHITI v. AUSTRIA (Application no. 28389/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 21
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF VENSKUTĖ v. LITHUANIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 11 December 2012
SECOND SECTION CASE OF VENSKUTĖ v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 10645/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 11 December 2012 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF MATEUS PEREIRA DA SILVA v. PORTUGAL. (Application no /13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 July 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF MATEUS PEREIRA DA SILVA v. PORTUGAL (Application no. 67081/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 July 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. MATEUS PEREIRA
More informationTHIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 03/04/2012
SECOND SECTION CASE OF BOULOIS v. LUXEMBOURG (Application no. 37575/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 December 2010 THIS CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE GRAND CHAMBER WHICH DELIVERED JUDGMENT IN THE CASE ON 03/04/2012
More informationFOURTH SECTION. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 12 November 2002 FI AL 12/02/2003
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PŁOSKI v. POLA D (Application no. 26761/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 12 November 2002 FI AL 12/02/2003 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF BALOGH v. HUNGARY. (Application no /99) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF BALOGH v. HUNGARY (Application no. 47940/99) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 20 July
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION. CASE OF PŁOSKI v. POLAND. (Application no /95) JUDGMENT
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF PŁOSKI v. POLAND (Application no. 26761/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 12 November
More informationFirst-time asylum seeker was not given effective remedy under fast-track procedure for examination of his case
issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 043 (2012) 02.02.2012 First-time asylum seeker was not given effective remedy under fast-track procedure for examination of his case In today s Chamber judgment
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF PİROĞLU AND KARAKAYA v. TURKEY. (Applications nos /02 and 37581/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG.
SECOND SECTION CASE OF PİROĞLU AND KARAKAYA v. TURKEY (Applications nos. 36370/02 and 37581/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 March 2008 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF STEVANOVIĆ v. SERBIA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF STEVANOVIĆ v. SERBIA (Application no. 26642/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 October
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 11987/11 Abdul Wahab KHAN against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Ineta
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF CIUCCI v. ITALY. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 June 2006
TESTO INTEGRALE THIRD SECTION CASE OF CIUCCI v. ITALY (Application no. 68345/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 June 2006 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF HARTMAN v. SLOVENIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 18 October 2012 FINAL 18/01/2013
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF HARTMAN v. SLOVENIA (Application no. 42236/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 18 October 2012 FINAL 18/01/2013 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 February 2015
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA (Application no. 15452/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 February 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND. (Application no /10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 31 October 2013
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ROONEY v. IRELAND (Application no. 32614/10) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 October 2013 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. ROONEY v. IRELAND 1 In the case
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF B.S. v. SPAIN. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG. 24 July 2012 FINAL 24/10/2012
THIRD SECTION CASE OF B.S. v. SPAIN (Application no. 47159/08) JUDGMENT [Extracts] STRASBOURG 24 July 2012 FINAL 24/10/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY. The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present: MM. C. A. NØRGAARD E. BUSUTTIL G. JÖRUNDSSON G. TENEKIDES S.
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION
FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 13630/16 M.R. and Others against Finland The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24 May 2016 as a Chamber composed of: Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 April 2016
FIRST SECTION CASE OF SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 18275/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 April 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF DEMİREL AND ATEŞ (NO. 3) v. TURKEY
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF DEMİREL AND ATEŞ (NO. 3) v. TURKEY (Application no. 11976/03) JUDGMENT
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF NEKVEDAVIČIUS v. LITHUANIA. (Application no. 1471/05) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG.
SECOND SECTION CASE OF NEKVEDAVIČIUS v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 1471/05) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 17 November 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article
More information